April 20, 2017 | By Dina Smeltz

The Foreign Policy Blob Is Bigger Than You Think

It is an open secret that the so-called foreign policy establishment did not think Donald Trump was qualified to become US president. While it is not too surprising that Democratic foreign policy experts would oppose a Trump presidency, the wide range of criticism from Republican foreign policy figures is more remarkable. In an illustrious letter published on the blog War On the Rocks, more than one hundred Republican foreign policy professionals signed an open letter in March 2016 opposing Donald Trump because “he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.”

The feeling was apparently mutual. As a candidate, Trump pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC and said he would never take foreign affairs advice from “those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.”  To be fair, Trump is not alone in criticizing the foreign policy establishment. President Obama also talked about breaking with “the Washington Playbook” when he decided to stand down in Syria in an interview with the Atlantic. President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes even went so far as to nickname the US foreign policy establishment as “The Blob” in a New York Times Magazine profile.

The June 25-October 25, 2016 Chicago Council Leadership Survey, conducted in partnership with the Texas National Security Network, illustrates that the Blob exists. There is indeed a bipartisan consensus among US foreign policy opinion leaders on the benefits of free trade, active US engagement with the world, and maintaining alliances. In fact, compared to US public opinion, the views among the Republicans and Democrats in the foreign policy elite more often synchronized with each other more than with the portion of the general public that affiliated with their same party.

Some may interpret the election of Donald Trump as the general public’s rejection of this bipartisan consensus, and think that Trump’s campaign positions about the US role in the world better reflected the typical American. But the Council surveys conducted before the November election showed that on the broad outlines of US foreign policy, the general public was more attuned to the views of these foreign policy opinion leaders than to President Trump’s views.

The American public broadly favored active international engagement, continuing alliances and recognized many benefits to free trade—though foreign policy opinion leaders are more committed to these ideas than the public. Additionally, similarly-sized majorities among both opinion leaders and the American public considered international terrorism and nuclear proliferation to be critical threats.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the areas where leader-public opinion gaps were most conspicuous were related to issue areas where Donald Trump’s messaging had been quite pronounced. The American public and opinion leaders were divided over the importance of protecting American jobs, the importance of protecting US allies’ security and US immigration policy.

Find the full report here.

About

Dina Smeltz joined The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February 2012 as a senior fellow in public opinion and foreign policy, and directed the Council’s 2012 survey of American public opinion (see Foreign Policy in the New Millennium).  She has nearly 20 years of experience in designing and fielding international social, political and foreign policy surveys.

As the director of research in the Middle East and South Asia division (2001-2007) and analyst/director of the European division (1992-2004) in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the US State Department’s Office of Research, Dina conducted over a hundred surveys in these regions and regularly briefed senior government officials on key research findings. Her experience includes mass public and elite surveys as well as qualitative research.  She has written numerous policy-relevant reports on Arab, Muslim and South Asian regional attitudes toward political, economic, social and foreign policy issues.  Her writing also includes policy briefs and reports on the post-1989 political transitions in Central and Eastern Europe, and European attitudes toward a wide range foreign policy issues including globalization, European integration, immigration, NATO, and European security.

With a special emphasis research in post-conflict situations (informally referred to as a “combat pollster”), Dina has worked with research teams in Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel-Palestinian Territories and in Iraq (2003-2005), where she was one of the few people on the ground who could accurately report average Iraqis impressions of the postwar situation.  In the past three years, Dina has consulted for several NGOs and research organizations on projects spanning women’s development in Afghanistan, civil society in Egypt and evaluating voter education efforts in Iraq.

Dina has an MA from the University of Michigan and a BS from Pennsylvania State University.

Feel free to email Dina with comments or questions at dsmeltz@thechicagocouncil.org

Archive



| By Craig Kafura

2018: Year in Chicago Council Surveys

It's been a busy, eventful year around the world. Throughout 2018, the Council's polling team has captured public and opinion leader attitudes on some of the most pressing foreign policy issues, including US-Russia relations, American views of China, public support for internationalism and trade, and how the rising generation of Millennials think about American foreign policy.


| By Karl Friedhoff

Confidence in Congress Low

As the House becomes majority Democrat, there is low confidence among the American public for Congress--and several other institutions--to shape policies that benefit the United States.



| By Craig Kafura

Public Support for Foreign Aid Programs

Past surveys have found that Americans want to cut US spending on foreign assistance and dramatically overestimate how much the US spends on those programs. When asked to construct their own US budget in the 2018 Chicago Council Survey, Americans allocate far more than the US actually spends. 




| By James Drimalla

Bleak Outlook on US-Russia Relations

A new joint report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Levada Analytical Center finds experts have little hope for US-Russia relations in the near future.


| By James Drimalla

Millennials' Divergent Views on Global Affairs

Attitudes and beliefs frequently change from generation to generation and a new joint study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, CATO Institute, and Charles Koch Institute explores generational differences between the American public on foreign policy issues.



| By Karl Friedhoff

Consequences of Success on the Korean Peninsula

The April 27 inter-Korean summit was largely successful in the eyes of the South Korean public. It has created momentary trust in North Korea, and if that lasts, may lead the public to ask serious questions about the US-South Korea alliance.


| By Karl Friedhoff

The Reunification Spectrum for South Koreans

When it comes to reunification, South Koreans take pause. A quick reunification likely has serious cosequences for the South, and is not much favored by the South Korean public. Instead, the status quo is generally favored, and those views are often conditioned by the actions of North Korea.


| By Karl Friedhoff

Diplomacy in the Air on Korean Peninsula

In the coming months, there will be a flurry of diplomatic activity on the Korean Peninsula. This is good news for many South Koreans, even though the South Korea public still has doubts about North Korea's true intentions.


| By Dzena Berbic, Craig Kafura

America and the Millennial Agenda

Millennials have become the most populous living generation in the United States, overtaking Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in becoming the largest voting body. So what do Millennials want, and what are some of their noticeable generational differences? A recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs event featuring Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-IL2), former Congressman Bob Dold (R-IL10), POLITICO’s Natasha Korecki, and Council pollster Craig Kafura, discussed Millennial attitudes and the Millennial political agenda.